of there were more in the -- on the western side of the city. not where the map is showing them. i'm concerned about that. i'm concerned about, you know, bringing in people over a million to do studies and research and intellectual planning before we see what we know what it is all about. i don't get the feeling we know what it is all about. we know it is a great idea. but there has to be more than that. >> i mean, just how we are approaching the program is we have a goal of 30 megawatts, or 90,000 participants who accomplish that 30 megawatts. the plan would essentially be structured to accomplish those goals. that is what we would be coming up with. that engagement education strategy be to engage the

public to enroll in this program when proposed to launch next year. >> i do understand commissioner your thought process. only thing i would say if staff and program feels they need resource that have done marketing and planning to facilitate, we don't have it and we will just be doing what we have been doing before. one of the things we have brought up is why don't you approve an amount of 100,000 -- not to exceed 100,000 to come up with a plan. so that 100,000 would help us come up with a plan but 1.5 was not to do planning but go out and reach the people that would volunteer

or be in the program in phase i. so that was part of what that cost would be. >> that's fine. >> i'm manager of contractor administration bureau. in alignment with what mr. kelly is saying, the recommendation would be you either have to award contract for the full value. similar to all other professional service agreements is we issue on task order basis, we issue first task order and team can come back to the commission after that task order is completed, report upon the commission and not issue a further task order until a recommendation is made and agreed upon. >> what is the impact if you make the full award at later date you decide you don't want to do that amount? is there any liability the city has in terms of intended profit or anything like that?

>> the contract would have language allowing you to terminate for convenience. the fact this is coming down before it on things executed we can put language in that makes this condition clear so they are not prepurchasing or making expenditures towards the ultimate full scope of the contract so it would be a manageable situation, so you wouldn't have liability beyond the initial task order expenditure. if that is the will of the commission. >> we can reference that language in the task order itself as well. >> like to move that forward. >> okay. so you would like to move an amendment. >> there is a task order provision in the current contract and i don't know what the amendment actually says but there is a task order provision. >> i drafted some language

trying to follow along so if you want i can read what i wrote down. >> that would be helpful. >> so at the end of the cause everything would stay the same accept we would put provided however staff will return to commission for further authorization prior to issuing task orders beyond initial task order with expenditure of not to exceed $100,000. subject to returning to the commission with a plan of action for further expenditures. >> is there a time line on it? >> you tell me. >> if you would like to put a time line on it. >> 30 days. >> that be all right with you? >> is that doable?

>> 30 days from which date? >> from execute of contract. >> that is not necessarily possible just because i can't issue and we can't with the city process a notice to proceed that quickly. maybe a recommendation is 30 or 60 days, whichever you advise from issuance of the ntp. >> may i ask the time line. >> of the task order. >> do you want 30 days after we initiate the contract to come back with you with a plan. is that what you are trying to get to. i'm trying to figure out what -- >> i am not that interested in a time line, accept that i think we need one. >> okay. >> whatever we decide it to be. i am more interested in my fellow commissioners getting back material with the two different surveys

we did about where those persons are that are willing to take this on. i don't recall that it was anywhere in that map that i just saw today, so you can help me with that. >> barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. you are spot-on commissioner, we did do two separate surveys going out to customers, asking them what their appetite is. the map that i showed you earlier is -- came from that survey work from the polling entity we hired to perform the work. it is consistent with the second poll's finding. it includes the new precincts that were recently implemented in san francisco. we would be happy by to sort of repaint the picture for you as a commission. refreshing everyone on the information that has been

coming in over, gosh, three, four years as we have performed the development work. >> the other point i would like to make is that at that juncture was it we were going to meet or be less than pg&e, or when those studies were done was it already assumed we would be paying more? i think that is very important. >> it is very important. yes, we did when we surveyed ask customers if they would be willing to pay more. not only did we ask if they would be willing to pay more, we told them knowing what we knew about those customer's energy consumption, we told them what their new bill would look like. and asked them even if it is this much more, you know, we asked them 40% more, 100% renewable portfolio. we did test those specific questions. having said that i think it is correct, commissioner,

we do need to have another survey, another poll performed. you know, as we talked earlier, some of the amendments we received through the legislative process increase what the premium will be. we need to go back out and ask customers again, a survey of customers again with this premium looking like this would you still be interested so we right-size the program. as president moran mentioned, this is a new business. we need a clear understanding of what our potential customers are willing to pay before we are willing to sign up for before we commit the city. >> very well put. isn't that the best thing to do first? >> well, i think the -- part of what we need to do is have the contract in capacity to conduct those studies. the firm that we had under contract before that

contract expired, part of what we are trying to accomplish with this contract is give us tools to perform that kind of work. the amendment that would allow us to come back to you with that knitting together of all these different, you know, polling and study work and what the going forward communications plan would be, that $100,000 task order would get us started. it would not fund additional survey work. additional survey work would take time -- >> sum -- >> the initial $100,000 task order would likely to the not be sufficient to fund both communications plan and additional survey. the $1.4 million before you in 8c, as in not exceed amount could include that additional survey work. >> a whole lot more. >> yes, yes.

>> one more thing, then i will be quiet. i think the important thing is to have another survey. i think it is very important where to find out where these customers are going to come from and look at that again and let them know exactly how much more they will be paying. not $8 to $20 -- like your house is this big and you probably be paying this amount of money. >> we could be more specific and we were in the prior to surveys, where we know how much the household historically consumes. we were able to calculate knowing what the new rate would be, the premium rate would be, exactly what their monthly bill would be. >> is their rate the same it was -- when did we take that survey, three years ago?

>> it wasn't that long ago. i think the last was in the last year and a half. that is just based upon recollection, i could be wrong. that is where the most recent maps came from. april 2011 and 2012. >> thank you. >> i'm done. >> how long does it take to get another supersede out. two to four weeks. my recommendation is task order be three to six months. if they complete sooner, they can return sooner to the commission. >> i am -- the way i'm processing those numbers, sounds to me as though there is a real schedule problem here. first of all, we don't know exactly what the rollout is going to be. and we don't have a plan for doing it.

it is going to take six weeks or so to get somebody on board, it will take sometime to plan and roll out and do the outreach we are talking about. i think there are very challenging expectations, at least as far as how quickly this can move. that would be where it would be very helpful to have the kind of schedule we had talked about earlier, laying out exactly how this will happen. not assuming everybody is on board and ready to go but understanding contracts take time to let and supersede and work takes time. that said i think there is some value as as you are putting together the plan for us to work with, that you have somebody with that kind of expertise to help you do that planning. i guess i would be supportive of the amendment that was suggested. i'm not sure how to do the

time frame because we haven't figured out how long that will take them to go not sure how to do a realistic time line. i guess i'm comfortable there is a lot of pressure to move things as quickly as they can possibly go. and that the $100,000 is it until you come back. so my guess is we will see them pretty quickly. >> my understanding that they can't do the survey with 100,000. >> i don't know they know what survey to do yet. quite frankly, they don't know what the rate also be yet. we don't know where there's decisions that haven't been made, the board has suggested go solar. is restricted to san francisco customers. that is something that i don't know if we need to do anything to make that real. changes the nature of what survey may have to be. if you have access to go

solar program would you be likely to sign up? i don't know if we know how to ask the questions yet. >> thank you, commissioner. we envisioned the subsequent surveys to be much like the prior surveys. talking to folks about what their actual bill premium would be if they stayed with the program. asking them whether they would stay with the program knowing that bill premium. the two prior survey, polling surveys we performed, those were the sort of questions asked of the customers. we did not poll them on ther services that would be provided through the clean power sf program, like go solar sf, like all the energy efficiency services that are available to them. and we hadn't planned on

including those more detailed questions in the survey. those would be components of the program that would definitely make it more attractive to customers, but in a conservative formation of the business plan, we weren't talking to them about that detailed -- that level of detail and those enhancements. we are sticking to the message of here is what the program would offer you. here is what it would mean to your pocketbook. would you stay with the program. >> so this survey would still not be down to the recruiting level. >> no. it is really just testing the market appetite. >> you would be presuming a rate structure. >> yes. given the indicative rates we have been provided for the wholesale power costs by shell, we have run that through our pro forma and we know what it would mean to the generation rate and to overall bill impacts for

customers. we know that already. we've already factored in the collection of reserve in the rates as we were directed by the board in their action on september 18th, so we know an indicative rate. >> okay. what we will get is an update on the prior surveys. >> correct. >> no more extensive -- this is a question. >> that was our plan. if you'd like us to do more or different we can, but our plan was to frame -- reframe question, same questions. go out to the customer base again with fresh data on costs and premiums and in recognition of the fact that san francisco has vacancy turnover, that kind of stuff. >> if you were to put into the planning effort as far

as the survey, any idea what that would cost? $200,000 total. >> what would the cost be if we went back to the initial people that did the two surveys. would we know that? >> i think the cost would be about the same. the timing would be the problem, then, because we don't have that firm under contract at this time. if we -- if we authorize the contract that's before you on item 8c, we could sub that portion of the work to a firm. but i think that would be the quickest way to procure

that service. >> that would be quicker -- >> than a new contracting process to procure that service separately. >> not quite clear. in other words, 8c would be faster than going back to old -- >> right. the farm we used before is no longer under contract to us, so we would have to either have a new contracting process that would result in a new contractor performing the work, potentially the same -- perform the work in the past. or under the contract that's before you as item 8c we could ask that the -- that survey work be subcontracted to the firm we identify. a firm. sorry. >> davis and associates do their own survey work? >> i don't know.

do we know? no. i'm told. >> they would have to subcontract, in any event. >> it is my understanding they would have to subcontract in any event, yes. >> can i -- i just want to make sure i understand. so we talked about coming up with a plan, right? now i'm sort of hearing you would like for us to do a new survey before we come up with the plan to help inform the plan. is that what -- >> that is what i'm saying. >> it would take longer to roll the program out, to do that. i think what we wanted is come up with a plan with different options, which will include that as well. and as mayor mentioned that he really wanted us to come up with a very robust plan before we do anything. i think he made that clear

to us that he wanted to make sure people volunteer into the program. at least what i'm suggesting to you is that let us come up with a plan that will achieve the mayor's direction and the board of supervisors and really come up with something that hopefully meets everyone's recommendations. >> mr. kelly, how can we come up with a plan without knowing who is going to be opting into the plan. >> part of the plan would be to strat guise how we do that. at the end of the day we have to reach out with everyone to identify who would volunteer into the program. the question is how do you best penetrate and get that information. one could be polling, one could be grassroots.

we need to talk about what is sort of the best way to do that as part of the plan. i agree we definitely need to do the polling. how do you do it in a strategic way. >> juliet ellis, assistant general manager for external affairs. i think the conversation to me is reflective that there is no road map or concrete plan of a detailed preenrollment allowing folks to identify they are interested prior to launching phase i, which would be the targeted opt-out, based on the maps that you have soon before you. i think the recommendation from staff is that we move forward with the contract in that we need additional capacity to come up with -- our initial approach with the cc program especially prior to conversation with the mayor's office and the board of supervisors and several of you was not that

we would do this preenrollment approach first. so with this additional layer the question is who are we going after in that first wave of looking for customers to identify their interest in the program. is it that we are going after green businesses, are we going to go after large-scale customers, are we going to go deep in precincts that are dark green in the map. part of what we are looking for with davis and associates team is help us think through. what is the best way to saturate and how does that phase in the rollout based on precinct maps. we will come back and it will say maybe additional polling to see if green businesses interested, is that the approach that would give us the biggest ability to hit that 30 megawatts, or is it another

approach. so what is the best plan to hit success. if they say we need to do additional polling, we come back and there is enough capacity on the contract to do kind of the implementing of the plan. but the contract was to develop what is the strategy to roll out cca and how do we do implementation. direct media buys, in addition to grassroots door knocking, et cetera. we are happy to come back on a monthly basis. i appreciate the feedback on a realistic time line. based on them getting the rates under them it will take more than 30 days to come back with the plan but hopefully you can feel comfortable if you limit how we roll out the task, we can do that then come back. laugh co. has asked us to come back with what the

outreach and education strategy will be and mayor's office has asked us to come back and present. there's lots of interest on how to roll this out. we will need additional support to come up with that plan. >> if i understand you properly, you are suggesting that what would be most useful is for the 100,000 increment to be approved. at this stage it would be premature to decide upon what if any surveying we need to do next? >> i do. i think we are not ready to do polling. the question is where and how. i think the strategy will determine are we going to target the private sector and businesses or larger scale or target and do polling going deeper into precincts where we think there are interests. i don't think there is an answer. sufficient with resources at hand, developing strategy and road map and moving forward with that strategy, whether it requires us to do focus groups or polling probably

makes the most sense. we are open to doing whatever the strategy that participating and developing tells us, that would be my recommendation. >> the most evolved recommendation from staff is we do the amendment that you had suggested with 100,000, and that the product of that would determine when they come back with a recommendation for what to do next and how much money that would cost. >> yes. so we could come back after the plan is developed, present that, get blessing from you all from lafco, brief the mayor who is also interested. hopefully not just have you approve the contract for each component but we come back on a regular basis to give you an update on the progress of implementing the program. >> yeah, and i'm very

concerned about the time line issue, the schedule issue too. we have a mandate from our supervisors to move forward with this program with the understanding we are rolling out next year. it is going to be tight. >> yep. >> to get the plan together, to get this contract in place, it is going to be tight. i want to go on record saying we will do our best to comply here with what the city has asked us to do but it will be a challenge. >> yep. >> my last remark, i will vote in favor of this amendment, the resolution. but i would like to add publicly that i can't believe that we sent this forward to the board of supervisors with all of these questions. all of these unanswered situations. it is really a black mark on this commission to do so. that now all of the sudden

we have to backtrack and get all this information put together. it is too bad. it is where we are. so i will make the motion, as amended. >> first of all, we have an amendment on the floor, which has been moved. >> okay. then we have another amendment? >> sorry? >> there is one amendment. i moved it. >> it moved it. >> you have put the -- >> 100,000 task order amendment. >> right. >> with a note date for returning, okay. >> as has been drafted. >> right. if you want, i can read it again with the -- >> why don't you do that. >> with the 100,000. it would be provided staff will return to the

commission for further authorization prior to issuing any task orders beyond an initial task order with an expenditure of not to comedian $100,000. that would be period. >> okay. so we have -- >> so i would like to make a motion on the amendment. >> it has been moved. >> it has been moved. >> the commissioner moved it, you would like to second that. >> second that. >> discussion on the amendment? >> i just, before we adopt, i just want to add to black mark a gold star, because i'm very proud of this commission for having moved forward this important initiative that is going to hopefully get us to the greenhouse gas emission reductions and climate change mandates we are facing, barreling down from disdain, so i want to add a gold star to the black mark. >> okay. >> accepted. >> is there any public

comment on the amendment? >> i'll sorry, i feel like i should add a little. eric brooks with the san francisco green party and local grassroots organization, our city. i think it is -- i think you are using a careful approach, that is good. i would also speak to the gold star side of the equation that -- keep in mind the reason the board ended up adopting this with amendments that changed it is that there was a massive effort by what we can call our opposition in the energy game, pg&e, to really shake the trees. so it wasn't as much as you as commissioners sent something half-baked but something that was pretty well-baked. it got hammered. we were forced to make amendments to respond to that hammering. with that said some of those